“This matter is before the Court on the unopposed Motion to Seal [ECF No. 291] filed by Defendants, Endo USA, Inc. and Endo Operations Limited (collectively, “Defendants”). Defendants seek to redact and seal portions of the Letter from Maureen T. Coghlan to the Hon. Chief Judge Renee Marie Bumb [ECF No. 286]. Defendants’ motion is supported by the Declaration of Aziz Burgy, Esquire [ECF No. 291-1] and an Index [ECF No. 291-2]. The Court exercises its discretion to decide Defendants’ motion without oral argument. See FED. R. CIV. P. 78; L. CIV. R. 78.1. For the reasons to be discussed, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. It is well established that there exists “a common law public right of access to judicial proceedings and records.” In re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 183, 192 (3d Cir. 2001) (citing Littlejohn v. BIC Corporation, 851 F.2d 673, 677–78 (3d Cir. 1988)). This right of access is not absolute, however, and must be balanced against countervailing interests in secrecy. See Leucadia, Inc. v. Applied Extrusion Techs., Inc., 998 F.2d 157, 165 (3d Cir. 1993) (citation omitted); see also In re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d at 194 (noting that “[t]he presumption of public access may be rebutted”). To overcome the presumption, a party must demonstrate that “good cause” exists for protection of the material at issue. Securimetrics, Inc. v. Iridian Techs., Inc., No. 03-4394, 2006 WL 827889, at *2 (D.N.J. Mar. 30, 2006). “Good cause exists when a party makes a particularized showing that disclosure will cause a ‘clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure.’” Id. (quoting Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 786 (3d Cir. 1994)). In this District, motions to seal are governed by Local Civil Rule 5.3, which requires the moving party to describe with particularity: (a) the nature of the materials or proceedings at issue; (b) the legitimate private or public interest which warrants the relief sought; (c) the clearly defined and serious injury that would result if the relief sought is not granted; and (d) why a less restrictive alternative to the relief sought is not available. See L. CIV. R. 5.3(c)(3). “Generally, a court will protect materials containing ‘trade secret[s] or other confidential research, development, or commercial information’ to prevent harm to a litigant’s competitive standing in the marketplace.” Faulman v. Sec. Mut. Fin. Life Ins., No. 04-5083, 2006 WL 1541059, at *1 (D.N.J. June 2, 2006) (alteration in original) (citations omitted); see In re Gabapentin Patent Litig., 312 F. Supp. 653, 644 (D.N.J. 2004) (“A well-settled exception to the right of access is the ‘protection of a party’s interest in confidential commercial information, such as a trade secret, where there is a sufficient threat of irreparable harm.”); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c)(1)(G). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning,” however, will not establish good cause. Pansy, 23 F.3d at 786 (citation omitted). Furthermore, “a party’s classification of material as protected or confidential does not automatically satisfy the criteria for sealing pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.3.” In re: Benicar (Olmesarten) Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 15-2606, 2016 WL 266353, at *3 (D.N.J. Jan. 21, 2016). The Court has reviewed the subject materials and finds that Defendants have sufficiently described the nature of the materials it seeks to redact and seal, and has asserted legitimate privacy interests which warrant sealing the materials. Defendants seek to redact and seal limited portions of the Letter from Maureen T. Coghlan to Hon. Chief Judge Renee Marie Bumb. See ECF No. 286. Defendants allege the subject materials contain highly sensitive business information, including proprietary, confidential, and commercially sensitive operations and regulatory strategies. See Burgy Decl. ¶ 4. If the subject materials are not sealed, Defendants contend public disclosure of the information would cause it to suffer competitive injury and give competitors an unfair advantage in the marketplace. See id. ¶ 5. The Court agrees the failure to seal the subject materials will result in serious injury to Defendants’ interests. The Court finds, as Defendants contend, if the subject materials were to become public, Defendants could be harmed by way of competitive disadvantage in the marketplace and injury to its business interests. Likewise, given the nature of the materials sought to be sealed and the narrow tailoring of Defendants’ request, the Court agrees that the only way to protect Defendants’ legitimate privacy interests is to redact and seal portions of the subject materials. Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this 22nd day of January, 2025, that Defendants’ Motion to Seal [ECF No. 291] is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to maintain under seal ECF No. 286, and it is further ORDERED that, to the extent not already done, Defendants shall file a redacted copy of ECF No. 286 in accordance with this Order by February 5, 2025.”